She is a ridiculous person, though not as ridiculous as Newt. In case anyone forgot (I doubt it), Newt spent a whole bunch of time making a certain former president's marital infidelity a central topic in American politics. He also pioneered the attack dog politics that he now whines about to no end. How did it come to be that GOP primary voters looked at Newt and thought "that's our guy!"?

I don’t recall. Was Gingrich appalled about the media reporting all the details of the Lewinsky scandal? I mean we learned everything about that mess to include vivid descriptions of the acts and the number of orgasms Clinton had.

"Ass" originally meant donkey (and silly person), but "arse" always meant buttocks. "Ass" became associated with "arse" because of a similar sound, which eventually caused people to stop saying "ass" for donkey.

Here in Dublin I see "ass" used as an occasional cutesy term for backside, which was mildly shocking for me as an American. Both sides of the pond revert to the less familiar word, thinking a euphemism.

It all has to do with the misconception of the American use of "ass" and the British use of "arse."

The misconception is that the two terms are expressions of the same, ah, object.

Americans will tend to use it within the media, because "arse" seems like "darn."

This is a misunderstanding of context, and, for the most part, innocent. However, having been presented this way, it creates a whole new American context, which redefines the word. This is certainly not unprecedented on these shores. As an example, refer to the usage of the word, "cunt" in the UK and USA, both historically and currently.

Palin using the term, "arse" is certainly no big deal, Althouse. That you choose to make it a big deal is silly.

Now, Andy did you hear about this one?Tell me, are you locked in the punch?Andy are you goofing on Elvis? Hey, baby Are we losing touch?If you believe the man on the moon, man on the moonIf you believe there's nothing up his sleeve, then nothing is cool

I am certain that those here who find Gingrich's marital record irrelevant would not be so tolerant of a Democrat with a similar record. It's fair to say that the media might give the Democrat more of a pass on it, but not so any Republican. I hold these truths to be self evident: Gingrich, Edwards, Clinton: they're all pretty sleazy.

"Since we're wayyy o/t ~ Boehner helped cover-up for a child molester er sexual pervert, Mark Foley, and he was punished by being elected Republican minority leader and then Republican Speaker."

Shilo,

That’s because Foley's district was a safe seat in the Congress and because he was a cash cow for fellow Republicans. They allowed the people of the 16th district in Florida to vote him back to office, 172,858 in 2002 and 215,563 in in 2004. Yet despite the heat being turned on him they were going to let them vote for him again, thinking that saying to Foley, "Hey, you know all the shit you write to the boy pages? Cut it out" was enough.

it's fair to say that the media might give the Democrat more of a pass on it, but not so any Republican. I hold these truths to be self evident: Gingrich, Edwards, Clinton: they're all pretty sleazy.

Regarding Gingrich - I'll say the same thing I said about Clinton back in the day - You hire a man to do the job. His personal life is none of your business. A man can be a strange human being - look at the accounts of life with Steve Jobs - and be gifted and effective in his business life.

What have we come to? We, the generation that believed in freedom, you do your thing and I do mine, and get the government out of our bedrooms, and now we are the worst kind of voyeur, led by our noses by the boob tube.

Who cared? Last week? Last month? Gingrich's marital storm is not news. Except to derail a man who might be able to stop the madness that is Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's legislature. Except to solidify the grip of a man who is willing to bypass the balance of power to accomplish his aims. NOW we care, because they drug this poor woman and her lingering pain into the spotlight. It's sick.

Now we judge people on who they went out with, or what they said to a woman 30 years ago, because we have become the nattering class. Lemmings.

And now, today - the Palin bashing has begun anew. Great. We can be proud.

As for Marianne Gingrich, just because you CAN go on national TV and spill your guts as if it is your shrink, doesn't mean you should. Discretion is the better part of valor.

It would have served Lewinsky well, too - to keep her mouth shut rather than provide fodder for the craven media.

"Regarding Gingrich - I'll say the same thing I said about Clinton back in the day - You hire a man to do the job. His personal life is none of your business. A man can be a strange human being - look at the accounts of life with Steve Jobs - and be gifted and effective in his business life."

Rose,

I think it’s a question about character. If a man isn’t going to be faithful to his vows of marriage how will he treat his oath of office? Steve Jobs didn’t take an oath of office. He was about making money. We need more than that in a president.

“What have we come to? We, the generation that believed in freedom, you do your thing and I do mine, and get the government out of our bedrooms, and now we are the worst kind of voyeur, led by our noses by the boob tube.

Who cared? Last week? Last month? Gingrich's marital storm is not news. Except to derail a man who might be able to stop the madness that is Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's legislature. Except to solidify the grip of a man who is willing to bypass the balance of power to accomplish his aims. NOW we care, because they drug this poor woman and her lingering pain into the spotlight. It's sick.

Now we judge people on who they went out with, or what they said to a woman 30 years ago, because we have become the nattering class. Lemmings.”

Gingrich is a supporter of DOMA and traditional marriage. Yet, his personal life doesn’t reflect those beliefs. Don’t you think that should be a consideration in determining his credibility to be a candidate for president?

“As for Marianne Gingrich, just because you CAN go on national TV and spill your guts as if it is your shrink, doesn't mean you should. Discretion is the better part of valor.

It would have served Lewinsky well, too - to keep her mouth shut rather than provide fodder for the craven media.”

Lewinsky didn’t initially want to talk. She was forced to do so under subpoena.

@36fsfiend I give you tons of cred for pointing out that we can't disavow vows.

But vows are like oaths. Oaths uphold the Constitution. It would interesting (to me, at least) if you set your sharp mind on whether sitting Presidents (recent ones) had trespassed Constitutional boundaries.

"But vows are like oaths. Oaths uphold the Constitution. It would interesting (to me, at least) if you set your sharp mind on whether sitting Presidents (recent ones) had trespassed Constitutional boundaries."

chicken,

As retire military, the oath of office is very important to me - almost sacred. To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution IS the president’s first duty in my opinion.

So, I have serious questions about the credibility of people like Gingrich who seem to have problems keeping their word or vows.

As far as the current president, what areas of the Constitution has Obama violated?

As has been mentioned by many the past 5/6 years, Reagan could never be the Rep nominee in today's political environment. He would fail the teabagger's litmus test of extremism.

And they got the wrong message sent by voters in the 2010 mid-term, when they beats the Dems nationwide generically by (5 million) votes. The 48.8 million votes they received was 22% of 218 mil­lion eli­gi­ble Amer­i­can voters.

>

When you (Boehner/Cantor) find yourself in the majority, it’s time for the 22% to pause and reflect! ~ Mark Twain

“As has been mentioned by many the past 5/6 years, Reagan could never be the Rep nominee in today's political environment. He would fail the teabagger's litmus test of extremism.”

Shilo,

I agree 100 percent. Reagan raised taxers 11 times. He worked with the Dems to save Social Security which is the reason there is a $2.7 trillion surplus in the trust fund. He wouldn’t make it in today’s environment.

“And they got the wrong message sent by voters in the 2010 mid-term, when they beats the Dems nationwide generically by (5 million) votes. The 48.8 million votes they received was 22% of 218 mil­lion eligible American voters.”

The incumbent traditionally loses during the midterms. It happened to Reagan as well.

Palin clearly used "arse" as a euphemism for "ass". It doesn't matter what "arse" means in Britain...in the US, it *is* a euphemism for "ass."

In the same manner, "bugger" and "bleeding" don't get bleeped when Monty Python episodes are re-run on US television.

Obscenities and profanities are 100% cultural. Anne, you may understand what it means in British culture...that says nothing of what it means in American culture.

15 years ago, the worst thing you could call a woman was "bitch", and "cunt" was only mildly worse than "pussy". Now "bitch" isn't even a swear word, and the word "cunt" is the worst word in the world. I expect to get criticized for using the word out of context, but them's the breaks.

I've never liked the substitution of "arse" in the US..it's not an American idiom and everyone knows what you're really saying. She shouldn't have gone there at all, though, because broadcast TV is not quite that vulgar yet and she shouldn't be pushing the envelope.

Or maybe she'll be the the one, if she's not planning to run for office again.

I think women tend to be down on Palin because she is an attractive woman who can - and will - go hunting and fishing, etc. with the guys and fit right in and that makes her a potential danger to be shunned and guarded against.

"Ass" originally meant donkey (and silly person), but "arse" always meant buttocks. "Ass" became associated with "arse" because of a similar sound, which eventually caused people to stop saying "ass" for donkey.

In some circles, arse is more acceptable for use in polite society than ass.

Whatever the actual etymology of the words involved, this has always been my experience. And everyone else's, no doubt. But one-upping that Alaskan Hickstress with some factoid or others is an irresistible, Pavlovian urge.

I've heard some of my non-cussing friends use arse to work their way around not saying ass. I will have to tell the history now.

Agreed, I’ve also noticed people saying “shite” instead of “sh**” and it’s usually from people who generally eschew vulgarity but are human just like the rest of us. Obviously it means the same thing but I’ve found that by substituting similar sounding words like “frack” and “felgercarb,” I get the cathartic release that can come from swearing but in a more humorous way that leaves me feeling more cheerful than losing my temper.

Ann, what have you done? You appear to have reverted back to your faulty wiring that caused you to vote for Obama. Your attack on Palin for the use of the word arse is asinine. That is one of the new things floating around in our collective vocabulary. I have noticed it being used with a pretty big frequency from my college age children. You are the one out of touch here not her.

Your jumping off the logic truck to bash something that was really a mistake on your part seems to have turned this into a daily KOS den. It's not like any of these mental giants can't tell the difference between disrespecting the office of President while in office by getting blown by an intern and then making the false equivalence to that of a person in his private life 20 years prior.

You have a brain. Use it. It has served you well. It's like you spent too much time in those NYU lefty dens and every once in a while the indoctrination overtakes you for a bit.

“Your jumping off the logic truck to bash something that was really a mistake on your part seems to have turned this into a daily KOS den. It's not like any of these mental giants can't tell the difference between disrespecting the office of President while in office by getting blown by an intern and then making the false equivalence to that of a person in his private life 20 years prior.”

Nick,

What are your thoughts about an individual disrespecting the Office of Speaker of the House by getting blown by a congressional aide?

When does a euphemism become an affectation? Arse sounds more like an affectation than a euphemism, but perhaps it's just a regionalism. Sometimes the euphemisms sound worse than the vulgarity.. Fecal matter smells worse than shit....My wv is phort.

Palin very likely has arses on her mind & means arses!!- she's just off a denunciation of Andrew Sullivan as a "kook" and does pull out loaded sexual terms for homosexual male critics who launch peculiar attacks at her- calling the Vanity Fair writer "impotent," etc. The whole thing is ripe for a Freudian reading- it's Sullivan who dreams about her "garden." Note in the new Hannity radio spot she says she calls a certain kind of media attack being "McGinnessed"- a nomenclature for straight but sexually obsessed critics, in which she places the Gingrich attack.

Well, According to Anne Manning, who became romantically involved with Gingrich during his 1976 campaign, Gingrich had a penchant for oral sex since apparently he could claim that he never technically “slept” with her. That almost sounds like Clinton and his argument about the definition of “is”, doesn’t it?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html

Given that, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that Callista serviced Gingrich in the method he most preferred.

Why don't we do a Starr-style report on Gingrich's infidelities and learn all the gory details like in the case with Clinton. Then we'll see how many of the faithful really want to put him in the White House.

If anyone doubts the power of Sarah to get press coverage and provoke controversy, let them consider this blog: 97+ comments on whether her use of the word "arse" was appropriate.

Right now, she's just warming up. Once she is in full gear during the campaign, she will eviscerate Obama with her unique brand of ridicule. For example, there is said to be a photo out there showing Obama at Disney World flanked on either side by Mickey Mouse and Goofy. Any guess on what Sarah's one-liner sound bite will be on this?

Palin is awesome. The mention of her name swells the egos of lefties who are reminded of how smart they are. It is remarkable. The two words do the trick. The cord is pulled and instantly all the smart engines are started with their clever canned, tiresome, repetitive comments. Lefties are reminded of how smart they are and how lumpy their wives or their own wide arses.

My parents rarely cuss, but will say "arse" instead of "ass," I'm guessing, only because it seems less vulgar to the ears.Same as when one hears "shite" subbed for "sh!t".I don't think Palin was being cutesy. (Though I haven't heard the clip.)

Not that measureable outcomes can be used to assess performance...where writing your emtoions, feelings and opinions are what matters.

But, let's say that measureable outcomes could be used to determine the artfulness of Palins language skills...would it matter that apparently whatever word choice she used was understood...as evidenced by 100% of those posting here. Or that, over 75% of those posting specifics about Palin comments, quote specific word useage that they remember/retain as a measure of significance.

Or that, the purpose of her comment was to state that Newt was going to be the beneficiary of the over reach of the media with the attempt to time the incoming IED known as Ex Mrs Newt 2. Today mulitple polling sources (Gallup, Rasmussen etc.) show Newt moving ahead of Romney after the debate...you know the debate where the first question by the media journalist was about the subject Palin was discussing...and sure enough...Newt smacked him down and the crowd went wild.

So, I say the to-ma-to and you say to-mah-to...Palin says arse and you say ass. Either way, she was right about the reaction and that's why what she says matters and why everything she says gets a major response from supporters and detractors alike.

"Or that, the purpose of her comment was to state that Newt was going to be the beneficiary of the over reach of the media with the attempt to time the incoming IED known as Ex Mrs Newt 2. Today mulitple polling sources (Gallup, Rasmussen etc.) show Newt moving ahead of Romney after the debate...you know the debate where the first question by the media journalist was about the subject Palin was discussing...and sure enough...Newt smacked him down and the crowd went wild."

Well, during the debate last night, Gingrich got all indignant when John King asked him about his ex-wife’s interview on ABC. Gingrich claimed that he was “appalled” that CNN would ask such a question right before the SC primary. He blasted King, stating:

"I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that."

However, Gingrich didn’t have any problem leading the attack ads about the Lewinsky affair right before the 1998 Presidential election:

No offense but my guess is that you are some kind of sympathy troll who pretends to be conservative but is really just working to flip weak minded GOP and independent voters to Obama. Have I got you pegged right?

It is interesting to me that the media is trying to kill Newt's campaign. If the media fears Newt enough to sabotage his campaign, then maybe Newt is't as bad as I thought. In any event, it is ABO all the way for me. I don't trust any purported conservative who isn't ABO.

The conversation about Palin using arse is arsinine. Palin has a wonderful arse, I would not blame her for being arsessistic about her arse.

@Steve Koch: I suspect that fiend is just the nom de plume of another well known Palin-loather around these parts.

I really don't understand the absolute fealty these people display towards Obama and how they react against any perceived threat against him. Do they really wish to cede that much power to any one man, of any party?

It will be interesting (in the train wreck sort way) how people like fiend will crank up the nasty against Romney later on this year here.

In that sense she is masculine. But she will never be cute and feminine like Katie Curic who is a descended from a French woman.

Sarah tries to take us back to Chaucer's England.

That vulgar Geoffrey Chaucer was a scandal in his day for not writing his works in Latin.

And at that time had only been about 370 years since French became the only language used by English Kings and their aristocracy. Still to this day many Law School owned words they argue in rely on losely transliterated Latin and French.

Neither. I’m not interested in voting for someone simply because they have an R after their name. I would really love to cast my vote for someone who stands for something.

To me Romney is, as someone aptly put it, a chameleon. He blows with the wind. I’d have more respect and confidence in him if he took a stand and stayed on point. Take his healthcare program in Massachusetts. He developed it and implemented it and he should be fighting like hell to explain why he did what he did. Own it. Be a leader.

Gingrich. Infidelity and ethics issues. Really, this is what we want?

Santorum. Personally, I think he should be running to be a bishop in the Catholic Church and not for political office.

Paul. Too far out in left field for me.

“ No offense but my guess is that you are some kind of sympathy troll who pretends to be conservative but is really just working to flip weak minded GOP and independent voters to Obama. Have I got you pegged right?”

I’m not trying to flip anyone. I’m just surprised at where the GOP is going. Take the financial crises for an example. I've always believed that the Republican Party was about smart business. You can’t serious tell me that the business model that led to the 2008 crash was smart. Yet, Republicans, like Toomey, my senator from PA, will continue to fight for the status quo. That doesn’t make sense to me. Personally, my finances are better now than when Bush was in office because we are trying to establish some stability and confidence in the markets with reasonable safeguards. Every other profession - aviation, engineering, medical, etc., have rules/regulations to protect personnel and property from harm. Why not financial as well? That’s not prudent, which is something that the older Bush practiced.

“It is interesting to me that the media is trying to kill Newt's campaign. If the media fears Newt enough to sabotage his campaign, then maybe Newt isn’t as bad as I thought. In any event, it is ABO all the way for me. I don't trust any purported conservative who isn't ABO.”

Newt is the biggest threat to Newt’s campaign. If he didn’t have all the dirt in his closet there wouldn't be the issues. Shifting the blame to the media is a copout. It’s not taking personal responsibility for one’s actions which is suppose to be a Republican strong point. To me he, and Palin as well, look like whinners. Quite belly aching about the media. If your honest with the American people, I believe you will prevail. That presupposes that yoy don't have dirt to hide. If you do, then you need to be above board about the facts.

“The conversation about Palin using arse is arsinine. Palin has a wonderful arse, I would not blame her for being arsessistic about her arse.”

I’m not a fan of Palin. In my opinion she is a symptom of what’s wrong with the party.

An interesting question. I think she strikes some sort of common chord with many on the Right. That she was mishandled by the McCain campaign, assassinated by the media during that campaign and subsequently litigiously hounded out of office doesn’t seem to matter to them.

Me earlier: Please. Gingrich doesn’t belong in the same sleaze league as Clinton and Edwards, each of who were kings of sleaze.

Maybe you need to read up about Newt and his thoughts on what he says and what he does and how the two don’t have to be consistent. He’s as bad if not worse.

As far as I know Newt hasn’t lied under oath. But then I think “sleaze” and ‘consistency’ are two different things – although of course they can both be present or absent in different degrees. For instance: Clinton’s was consistent with his numerous sleazy sexual indiscretions. As for Edwards, has the commentor heard about the Edwards/Hunter sex tape?

http://tinyurl.com/82h77rg

Yes, how many of Newt’s marriages were ruined because of the gays?

Perhaps one of our readers could let me know what the commentor is driving at with this remark.

He’s a real Family Values kind of guy, isn’t he?

The commentor is very focussed on “Family Values.” Which is strange, since I’m not a real big “Family Values” type of guy.

True[50% divorce rate in US], so let’s worry about the gays and not adultery and divorce which is the real threat to marriage and families.

But I don’t “worry about the gays” at all. It’s just not one of the things I do. My point was that since the divorce rate is 50% Gingrich is far from unique in that respect.

Why[doubt my voting record], because I don’t agree with the collective mindset? When are we going to get a real leader in the Republican Party? Someone who truly gives a damn about the country and not just himself?

Just a staunch Republican concerned about his Grand Old Party. I took the commentor as a poser but perhaps I was wrong.

I’m not interested in voting for someone simply because they have an R after their name. I would really love to cast my vote for someone who stands for something. To me Romney is, as someone aptly put it, a chameleon. He blows with the wind. I’d have more respect and confidence in him if he took a stand and stayed on point. Take his healthcare program in Massachusetts. He developed it and implemented it and he should be fighting like hell to explain why he did what he did. Own it. Be a leader.

Here again, the staunch but saddened Republican reluctantly prepares to cast his vote for Obama.

Gingrich. Infidelity and ethics issues. Really, this is what we want?

Obama would be better?

Santorum. Personally, I think he should be running to be a bishop in the Catholic Church and not for political office.

Skirting religious bigotry. Not quite there, but close.

Paul. Too far out in left field for me.

A safe condemnation since Ron Paul has little chance to be the nominee.

Personally, my finances are better now than when Bush was in office because we are trying to establish some stability and confidence in the markets with reasonable safeguards.

The commentor’s finances are better under Obama. Good for him. If only the rest of the nation was doing so well Obama would be a shoo-in for re-election.

To me he[Gingrich], and Palin as well, look like whiners. Quit belly aching about the media. If your honest with the American people, I believe you will prevail. That presupposes that you don't have dirt to hide. If you do, then you need to be above board about the facts. I’m not a fan of Palin. In my opinion she is a symptom of what’s wrong with the party.

Apparently the commentor expects Gingrich and Palin to mutely stand by and allow the MSM to dictate their public images. Because if they speak up and talk back … why … that’s just whining, you know.

My point is why does it have to be under oath to only matter? Did or did not Gingrich commit adultery? As I understand it he did on multiple occasions. Yet he claims he supports traditional family values. That doesn’t jive in my opinion.

“No, I’m more of Let’s Stick to the Facts kind of guy”

And again, what are the facts? By all accounts Gingrich is a serial adulterer. If we not going to give Clinton a pass for screwing around neither should we for Gingrich.

“An interesting question (regarding Palin). I think she strikes some sort of common chord with many on the Right. That she was mishandled by the McCain campaign, assassinated by the media during that campaign and subsequently litigiously hounded out of office doesn’t seem to matter to them.”

I think we are lowering the bar with Palin. In my opinion she is not exceptional.

“As far as I know Newt hasn’t lied under oath. But then I think “sleaze” and ‘consistency’ are two different things – although of course they can both be present or absent in different degrees. For instance: Clinton’s was consistent with his numerous sleazy sexual indiscretions. As for Edwards, has the commenter heard about the Edwards/Hunter sex tape?”

About the oath again. If I drive above the speed limit but I’m not caught, am I guilty of speeding? Or does it only count when am I caught? Gingrich is a serial adulterer oath or no oath, period.

“Perhaps one of our readers could let me know what the commentor is driving at with this remark.”

Gingrich is for DOMA which is about gay marriage. It’s based on the idea that homosexual marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. I contend that adultery and divorce are a bigger threat to heterosexual marriage with Gingrich being a perfect example of the point.

“The commenter is very focused on “Family Values.” Which is strange, since I’m not a real big “Family Values” type of guy.”

Because Gingrich claims to be a supporter of family values even though his actions prove otherwise. Looks like hypocrisy or bullshit to me.

“True[50% divorce rate in US], so let’s worry about the gays and not adultery and divorce which is the real threat to marriage and families.

But I don’t “worry about the gays” at all. It’s just not one of the things I do. My point was that since the divorce rate is 50% Gingrich is far from unique in that respect.”

Again, adultery and divorce, which Gingrich is proficient at, is a greater threat to marriage than the gays. In other words, the lifestyle Gingrich has embraced is a greater threat to traditional marriage as demonstrated with his multiple marriages. For someone who claims to support traditional one-man one-woman at a time marriage he doesn’t fit the bill. He doesn’t walk the walk. I don’t think he is genuine.

My point is why does it have to be under oath to only matter? Did or did not Gingrich commit adultery? As I understand it he did on multiple occasions. Yet he claims he supports traditional family values. That doesn’t jive in my opinion. By all accounts Gingrich is a serial adulterer. If we not going to give Clinton a pass for screwing around neither should we for Gingrich.

Gingrich has admitted to 2 adulteries. That hardly qualifies him as a “serial adulterer. And that’s a lot more truthful than Clinton or Edwards, who denied theirs.

Me earlier: No, I’m more of Let’s Stick to the Facts kind of guy …

And again, what are the facts?

The facts are that Clinton lied under oath and was criticized by the Right for doing so.

I think we are lowering the bar with Palin. In my opinion she is not exceptional.

Offhand I can’t think of any instances since the 2008 election of the GOP “pushing” Palin. But memory is a faulty and unreliable instrument. Perhaps the commentor could give some links to examples of GOP “party leadership” after the 2008 election “pushing Palin on us.” We’ll be waiting.

About the oath again. If I drive above the speed limit but I’m not caught, am I guilty of speeding? Or does it only count when am I caught? Gingrich is a serial adulterer oath or no oath, period.

Inaccurate analogy problem here. There’s no oath involved in getting a ticket. The problem would be if the speeder later lied under oath and claimed he didn’t get the ticket. Newt committed adultery twice and publicly admitted it. Clinton lied under oath that he didn’t.

Gingrich is for DOMA which is about gay marriage. It’s based on the idea that homosexual marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. I contend that adultery and divorce are a bigger threat to heterosexual marriage with Gingrich being a perfect example of the point.

So we should vote for Obama? Wait … isn’t Obama also against gay marriage?

Because Gingrich claims to be a supporter of family values even though his actions prove otherwise. Looks like hypocrisy or bullshit to me.

So anyone who ever committed adultery cannot, years later, legitimately claim to support “family values.” Seems kind of harsh to me.

Again, adultery and divorce, which Gingrich is proficient at, is a greater threat to marriage than the gays. In other words, the lifestyle Gingrich has embraced is a greater threat to traditional marriage as demonstrated with his multiple marriages. For someone who claims to support traditional one-man one-woman at a time marriage he doesn’t fit the bill. He doesn’t walk the walk. I don’t think he is genuine.

That’s the commentor’s argument. That because Gingrich has had sex outside his marriage in the past and doesn’t recognized that such behavior is more damaging to the social fabric than same-sex marriage we should apparently be so outraged as to vote for Obama. Talk about convoluted … I’ll pass.

I guess that says something about the Republican base, doesn’t it? We are willing to accept mediocrity.

“Offhand I can’t think of any instances since the 2008 election of the GOP “pushing” Palin. But memory is a faulty and unreliable instrument. Perhaps the commentor could give some links to examples of GOP “party leadership” after the 2008 election “pushing Palin on us.” We’ll be waiting.”

What’s the Fox News gig all about? Numerous speeches on the same tired talking points. Candidatess seeking her endorsement, etc.

“Inaccurate analogy problem here. There’s no oath involved in getting a ticket. The problem would be if the speeder later lied under oath and claimed he didn’t get the ticket. Newt committed adultery twice and publicly admitted it. Clinton lied under oath that he didn’t.”

No. The point is about committing a crime even if you are not caught. They say integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching. We could use a little bit more of that in our political system.

“ So we should vote for Obama? Wait … isn’t Obama also against gay marriage?”

I don’t think he has come out, so to speak, definitely for it. But, again, we’re talking about Gingrich and his apparent hypocrisy between what he says and what he does.

No. But I think some true reconciliation would have to be shown. Gingrich is more in the attack-the-media mode as it appears to me. Again, he needs to come clean and stop the bullshit. And still, the fact of the matter is he may not be qualified for the position. It’s kinda the old you reap what you sow.

“That’s the commentor’s argument. That because Gingrich has had sex outside his marriage in the past and doesn’t recognized that such behavior is more damaging to the social fabric than same-sex marriage we should apparently be so outraged as to vote for Obama. Talk about convoluted … I’ll pass.”

Again, I did not vote for Obama, I don’t contribute to his campaign and I’m not planning to vote for him in the future. However, I don’t think Romney is going to take him so I guess I’ll be stuck with him for another four years.

Well excuse me. The commentor’s earlier condemnation of the entire Republican field of candidates led me to believe he was “pushing” Obama. But he’s not pushing Obama. Nah. He’s just tearing apart any potential foe of Obama. Big difference.

Gingrich. Infidelity and ethics issues. Really, this is what we want?

My reply: Obama would be better?

I don’t know. Obama doesn’t claim the family values mantra but I don’t believe he has cheated on his wife. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Another defense of Obama. But the commentor doesn’t want to vote for Obama, oh no; he just wants eliminate any potential opponent of Obama. Subtlety.

I just want politicians to keep their personal religious beliefs out of my life. I kinda like the First Amendment.

Let’s see now … the commentor claims to be a champion of family values and Santorum is the leading family values candidate in the GOP field yet Santorum’s religion is just way too intrusive for the commentor’s taste. I’ll call it the “anti-Goldilocks Syndrome” – the porridge is always too hot or too cold – never, ever acceptable.

Me earlier: The commentor’s finances are better under Obama. Good for him. If only the rest of the nation was doing so well Obama would be a shoo-in for re-election.

I didn’t say I was doing well, just better than under Bush. And why do we want to remain with the system that failed prior to 2009? What's wrong with safeguards in the system?

And I didn’t say the commentor’s finances are “doing well,” just pointing out that most folks are doing worse under Obama’s administration than they were under Bush. But not the commentor – no – he’s one of the lucky ones and he is emphatically not doing worse under Obama than he was under Bush.

Quit blaming the media. Again, did or did not Gingrich commit adultery? The media didn’t cause Gingrich to be unfaithful to his wives. He needs to take personal responsibility for his actions.

Neither Gingrich nor myself has ever claimed Gingrich was driven to adultery by the MSM. And Gingrich, unlike Clinton, publicly admitted his infidelities, took responsibility and asked his Maker for forgiveness. I ask the readers to contrast that with Clinton’s behavior.

By the way, Gingrich whines about the media attacking him, but he had no problems doing the exact same thing in 1998 to Clinton

But it wasn’t the “exact same thing,” was it? Gingrich attacked Clinton for lying under oath about Lewinski. The “media” covered for Clinton(and Edwards in the case of Reille Hunter) until the MSM had to be dragged kicking and screaming into both sex scandals. It was only after Lewinsky’s mom offered up her daughter’s sperm-stained dress that they had to quit labeling the conservatives as opportunists with no case against Clinton. And it was only after Edwards was photograph holding his love child in the delivery hospital that the MSM reluctantly got into the act.

I think Gingrich and Palin have learned that they can occasionally turn the tables on the MSM(which is overwhelmingly Lefty) IF, and only if they speak out when the inevitable attacks occur.

“Well excuse me. The commentor’s earlier condemnation of the entire Republican field of candidates led me to believe he was “pushing” Obama. But he’s not pushing Obama. Nah. He’s just tearing apart any potential foe of Obama. Big difference.”

Grackle,

I was simply stating what I see as issues with the Republican candidates. The original question to me was if the race was between Gingrich and Obama, who would I vote for and I answered neither of them. I actually believe in some values one of which is a man shouldn’t be fucking around on his family. If there is a legitimate problem that can’t be resolved in a marriage then get a divorce and press with finding a new spouse. That’s not what Gingrich did. He screwed around on two wives. As far as I’m concerned he’s no better than Clinton. Do you seriously think Clinton’s impeachment was just about perjury? Do you really believe that if Clinton lied under oath about some mundane administrative situation that we would have had the whole impeachment and Starr investigation circus? It was about blowjobs in the Oval Office. Sex sells. If you’re not going to give Clinton a pass then your being hypocritical to give Gingrich a pass. I’m not interested in giving Gingrich a pass. Contrary to the screeching from some on the right, Obama will not destroy the country. He’s implementing Democratic policies. The Union will survive – it’s survived worse. But I’m not compromising my values to vote for an unrepentant adulterer just in the hope of getting Obama out of office. Why have values if I do otherwise?

“Another defense of Obama. But the commentor doesn’t want to vote for Obama, oh no; he just wants eliminate any potential opponent of Obama. Subtlety.”

See above. If you comfortable with a philandering man for President go for it. I’m not. Again, if you don’t want to give Clinton a pass you, in my opinion, you are being hypocritical. That’s your business.

“Let’s see now … the commentor claims to be a champion of family values and Santorum is the leading family values candidate in the GOP field yet Santorum’s religion is just way too intrusive for the commenter’s taste. I’ll call it the “anti-Goldilocks Syndrome” – the porridge is always too hot or too cold – never, ever acceptable.”

I’m not interested in having his Catholic beliefs imposed on my life. That doesn’t make me anti family – I’m not the one pushing for the philanderer, you are. Again, I like the First Amendment and the freedoms it guarantees.

“And I didn’t say the commentor’s finances are “doing well,” just pointing out that most folks are doing worse under Obama’s administration than they were under Bush. But not the commentor – no – he’s one of the lucky ones and he is emphatically not doing worse under Obama than he was under Bush.”

Grackle,

Do you serious believe the system in place prior to 2009 was a smart business model? Why do Republicans want to remain with the status quo with a system that failed? As far as the economy, unemployment is slowing coming down and the debt is slowing being decreased. Remember where this all started and why. I want safeguards in place. That would be prudent. Tell me what Republic supports fixing the system and holding people accountable for their actions during the financial collapse? I thought accountability was a Republican trait?

“Neither Gingrich nor myself has ever claimed Gingrich was driven to adultery by the MSM. And Gingrich, unlike Clinton, publicly admitted his infidelities, took responsibility and asked his Maker for forgiveness. I ask the readers to contrast that with Clinton’s behavior.”

You are going to have to help me out with these acts of contrition by Gingrich. Do you have a link to a site with info where he specifically discusses each infidelity to clear the air?

As far as Clinton, the link below is his apology to the nation for the Lewinski scandal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r4e5Wg4PDI

“But it wasn’t the “exact same thing,” was it? Gingrich attacked Clinton for lying under oath about Lewinski. The “media” covered for Clinton(and Edwards in the case of Reille Hunter) until the MSM had to be dragged kicking and screaming into both sex scandals. It was only after Lewinsky’s mom offered up her daughter’s sperm-stained dress that they had to quit labeling the conservatives as opportunists with no case against Clinton. And it was only after Edwards was photograph holding his love child in the delivery hospital that the MSM reluctantly got into the act.”

Regarding the oath, see my first point. Again, the whole thing was about sex and that’s why Gingrich was going to talk about it at every opportunity he had while speaker. Keep in mind that while this was going on Gingrich was banging Callista behind his second wife’s back. More bullshit from Gingrich. But if that’s what you want to support have at it.

“I think Gingrich and Palin have learned that they can occasionally turn the tables on the MSM(which is overwhelmingly Lefty) IF, and only if they speak out when the inevitable attacks occur.”

Well, if Gingrich didn’t have all the dirt in his closet, he wouldn’t be having the problems with the media. And we still haven’t even gotten to the sanction for ethics problem that he was docked $300K for. First time in the history of the nation for a speaker to be sanctioned. How are we doing so far?

As far as Palin, she complains about the media but she is part of the media now.

Me earlier: Gingrich has admitted to 2 adulteries. That hardly qualifies him as a “serial adulterer. And that’s a lot more truthful than Clinton or Edwards, who denied theirs.

He may have admitted to two but from my readings there are more.

Will the commentor kindly direct the readers to any evidence he has for the other adulteries, other than his fertile imagination, that is.

By the way, what’s the threshold for sleazebag? Three, four, five?

It was the commentor that played the sleaze card. I merely made some observations of fact and asked a couple of questions in regards to sleaze. I have no “threshold” for sleaze, other than opposition to the commentor’s own implied threshold of Gingrich’s 2 adulteries, freely admitted to and committed years ago. I merely offered that his standard(not mine) seemed a bit harsh.

And people can lie when they not under oath. You know that commandment about not bearing false witness? It doesn’t require you to be under oath to break it.

Here the commentor brings religion into his deliberations – something he condemns Santorum for. But he’s NOT hypocritical.

I guess that says something about the Republican base, doesn’t it? We are willing to accept[Palin’s] mediocrity.

To the commentor Palin represents “mediocrity” yet he also thinks Palin holds great “sway” over Republicans. Most mediocre folks I know hold very little “sway.” But I guess the commentor’s experience is different.

Me earlier: Perhaps the commentor could give some links to examples of GOP “party leadership” after the 2008 election “pushing Palin on us.” We’ll be waiting.”

What’s the Fox News gig all about? Numerous speeches on the same tired talking points. candidates seeking her endorsement, etc.

Ah, but the subject was “party leadership” and their “pushing” of Palin on us, was it not? Fox News is irrelevant since FoxNews is not a GOP party leader. The commentor needs to get busy and start posting examples of GOP party leaders pushing Palin on us. We’ll still be waiting …

Me earlier: Inaccurate analogy problem here. There’s no oath involved in getting a ticket. The problem would be if the speeder later lied under oath and claimed he didn’t get the ticket. Newt committed adultery twice and publicly admitted it. Clinton lied under oath that he didn’t.

No. The point is about committing a crime even if you are not caught.

The commentor’s point(which he seems to be trying to run away from) was that the GOP and Gingrich went after Clinton for adultery but the fact is that Clinton got into his trouble for lying under oath, NOT for committing adultery. I merely pointed out his error.

Me earlier: So we should vote for Obama? Wait … isn’t Obama also against gay marriage?

Obama: However, I do not support gay marriage … Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Me earlier: So anyone who ever committed adultery cannot, years later, legitimately claim to support “family values.” Seems kind of harsh to me.

No. But I think some true reconciliation would have to be shown.

The commentor probably intended “reconciliation” to mean “atonement” or asking for forgiveness for his past adultery. Something tells me that there is nothing Gingrich could ever do that would get the commentor over Gingrich’s adultery which he earlier claimed was more “sleazy” than either Clinton’s or Edwards’s perfidies.

Gingrich is more in the attack-the-media mode as it appears to me.

Yeah, sure, but the difference is that I like Gingrich’s attack-the-media mode because the media richly deserves it.

Again, he needs to come clean and stop the bullshit.

Gingrich has publicly admitted his adultery and asked for forgiveness. What’s with the commentor’s continued Gingrich has got to “come clean” mantra?

Again, I did not vote for Obama, I don’t contribute to his campaign and I’m not planning to vote for him in the future … Maybe next time the GOP will field a real leader.

Here I think the readers may be genuinely puzzled. If he’s not going to vote for Obama and he’s not going to vote for anyone among the four GOP candidates just who is the commentor going to vote for? The Socialist candidate? The Libertarian? Oh well …

“Will the commentor kindly direct the readers to any evidence he has for the other adulteries, other than his fertile imagination, that is.”

Grackle,

The Vanity Fair article at the link below discusses Gingrich’s affairs with Dot Crews, a campaign volunteer in 1974, and Anne Manning, a campaign volunteer in 1976. You have to scroll down to around the halfway point:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html

“It was the commentor that played the sleaze card. I merely made some observations of fact and asked a couple of questions in regards to sleaze. I have no “threshold” for sleaze, other than opposition to the commentor’s own implied threshold of Gingrich’s 2 adulteries, freely admitted to and committed years ago. I merely offered that his standard(not mine) seemed a bit harsh.”

Well, again my threshold is zero. In an affair, you breaking a vow or an oath. More than one is diffently a problem in my opinion.

“Here the commentor brings religion into his deliberations – something he condemns Santorum for. But he’s NOT hypocritical.

Grackle,

A couple of things. I didn’t say I wasn’t religious. I’m not interested in having a politician, in this case Santorum, impose his beliefs on me. Additionally, non religious people are also against lying. Think of the golden rule: do unto others what you would want them to do unto you. If you don’t want to be lied to then don’t lie to others.

“To the commentor Palin represents “mediocrity” yet he also thinks Palin holds great “sway” over Republicans. Most mediocre folks I know hold very little “sway.” But I guess the commentor’s experience is different.”

Again, in my opinion, that’s a reflection on the base’s willingness to accept someone less than exceptional. The base needs to raise their standards.

“Ah, but the subject was “party leadership” and their “pushing” of Palin on us, was it not? Fox News is irrelevant since FoxNews is not a GOP party leader. The commentor needs to get busy and start posting examples of GOP party leaders pushing Palin on us. We’ll still be waiting”

Grackle,

Are you serious? You don’t think Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdock are not involved with the party leadership? How about Rush Limbaugh and Jim DeMint who have both pushed Palin?

“The commentor’s point(which he seems to be trying to run away from) was that the GOP and Gingrich went after Clinton for adultery but the fact is that Clinton got into his trouble for lying under oath, NOT for committing adultery. I merely pointed out his error.”

Well, again, I ask do you seriously think Clinton’s impeachment was just about perjury? Do you really believe that if Clinton lied under oath about some mundane administrative situation that we would have had the whole impeachment and Starr investigation circus? It was about blowjobs in the Oval Office. Like I said, sex scandals generate attention and high emotions. Hence, why it is best they be avoided by those in office. If Clinton lied about some operational issue I don’t think there would have been an impeachment and certainly no investigation like we got with the Starr report and all the sordid details to include the number of orgasms Clinton had.

“Obama: However, I do not support gay marriage … Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.”

http://tinyurl.com/7jl2obw

That link you provided is from 2008. The article at the link below is from today and says Obama will endorse same-sex marriage in next Tuesday’s State Of The Union address:

“The commentor probably intended “reconciliation” to mean “atonement” or asking for forgiveness for his past adultery. Something tells me that there is nothing Gingrich could ever do that would get the commentor over Gingrich’s adultery which he earlier claimed was more “sleazy” than either Clinton’s or Edwards’s perfidies.”

Well it also looks like Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council is not satisfied with any atonement Gingrich may have done. In the article at the link below Perkins states:

"I think, especially in the evangelical community, they understand the issue of forgiveness, But that does not necessarily translate into endorsing for leadership. When you look at the captain of the Costa Concordia, the guy who abandoned his responsibility -- I mean, who's going to put him in charge of a cruise ship again? I'm not getting on that cruise ship."

“Yeah, sure, but the difference is that I like Gingrich’s attack-the-media mode because the media richly deserves it.”

Well, he seems to come off as being arrogant. That doesn’t seem very remorseful.

“Gingrich has publicly admitted his adultery and asked for forgiveness. What’s with the commentor’s continued Gingrich has got to “come clean” mantra?”

Can you help me with a link to that apology?

“Here I think the readers may be genuinely puzzled. If he’s not going to vote for Obama and he’s not going to vote for anyone among the four GOP candidates just who is the commentor going to vote for? The Socialist candidate? The Libertarian? Oh well”

I didn’t say I wasn’t going to vote for none of the candidates, just Gingrich. And, although I think Romney will get the nomination, I don’t think as of right now he will defeat Obama.

I actually believe in some values one of which is a man shouldn’t be fucking around on his family.

Yes. We know. Gingrich admitted to his infidelities, apologized and asked for forgiveness but he was still sleazier than either Clinton or Edwards. Right.

Do you really believe that if Clinton lied under oath about some mundane administrative situation that we would have had the whole impeachment and Starr investigation circus?

Maybe not a “mundane administrative situation.” That would not constitute a real scandal and no one would really be interested in pursuing Clinton for a mundane lie. What really got Clinton in public relations trouble was all of his lying to the public about Lewinsky until after the sperm-stained dress was produced and he was forced to admit he had lied under oath.

But since the commentor has a liking for the hypothetical … what if Clinton would have lied under oath about a scandal such as Fast and Furious or Solyndra? Think he would have gotten a pass even though it wouldn’t have been about sex?

If you’re not going to give Clinton a pass then your being hypocritical to give Gingrich a pass.

When did I ever say that I wouldn’t give a pass to Clinton for his sexual infidelities? As a matter of fact I didn’t care then and don’t care now that Clinton got blowjobs. I think Clinton is entitled to all the blowjobs that the ladies want to give him. But I don’t cotton to lying under oath – which doesn’t have a thing to with sex. It has to do with the heart of our judicial system which counts on the oath – that’s why judges get so pissed off when they discover perjury in their proceedings. Lying under oath destroys the integrity of the judicial process.

But I’m not compromising my values to vote for an unrepentant adulterer just in the hope of getting Obama out of office. Why have values if I do otherwise?

The commentor continues in his why doesn’t Gingrich “come clean” mode even though Gingrich has publicly repented for his infidelities.

If you comfortable with a philandering man for President go for it. I’m not. Again, if you don’t want to give Clinton a pass you, in my opinion, you are being hypocritical. That’s your business.

I’m comfortable with any of the candidates opposing Obama. He’s a much greater threat than Gingrich, the repentant adulterer. Obama wants to transform the US into a European-style heavily socialist society. And as I explained above I could give a fig about Clinton’s blowjobs.

I’m not interested in having his[Santorum’s] Catholic beliefs imposed on my life.

Question for the commentor: Just which of Santorum’s specifically Catholic beliefs does the commentor believe Santorum would impose on the commentor? It cannot be abortion since the religious leaders of so many other denominations also oppose abortion. Opposition to abortion is not restricted to Catholics, after all.

That doesn’t make me anti family – I’m not the one pushing for the philanderer, you are. Again, I like the First Amendment and the freedoms it guarantees.

Two transgressions, occurring years ago, publicly apologized and repented for is good enough for me. But to the commentor that was ENORMOUS. A deal breaker. An absolute indicator that disqualifies Gingrich for office. Because he LOVES the First Amendment, of course. Yeah. Me too.

Well, that is the 800 pound gorilla in the room with Gingrich, right? And we haven't gotten to his sabction in the House for 84 ethics charges.

“36fsfiend said nothing about economic issues. I think this is what we (Americans) really want to hear.”

I mentioned up threat my thoughts on the economy. Recent data indicates the unemployment rate is slowly coming down and the deficit is slowly being paid off.

I posed the question about the Republicans seemingly willingness to continue with the status quo with the financial industry. What Republican is pushing for safeguards to prevent another economic calamity? Not my senator, Toomey from PA. How about accountability for the damage done to this country? Which Republicans are pushing for the long held concept of accountability for one’s actions? Where the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street thinking about the sacrifices of our troops overseas when they were devising these CDOs and mortgage backed securities that contributed to our economic collapse?

“My theory? fiend is utterly hung up on preaching morals--especially his morals.”

No. As I stated up thread I have values. Gingrich doesn’t meet those values. If I don’t stick to my values because I only want to get someone in office to remove Obama then what good are they? Again, I always thought this was a Republican foundational belief no?

As I stated up thread, I don't hate her or wish her or her family any harm. I just don't think she is qualified to be the President of the United States.

Did you watch her performance during the campaign - the interviews, the debate, the stump speeches? At times it was painful. And all I could ask is what in the world was the Republican leadership thinking.

Also, I didn't appreciate the divisiveness with comments like "real American". Who and who's not a "real American"? Were the people who jumped to their deaths from the Trade Towers "real American"? I don't know since I have yet to see a map of "real America" For all I know living out here near Valley Forge, PA I may not be a "real American?

I didn't appreciate the divisiveness and I think that was something she feel back on because she did not have a command of the issues facing this country.

Well it also looks like Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council is not satisfied with any atonement Gingrich may have done.

Yeah, but Tony Perkins endorsed Santorum, which the commentor also does not like. Looks like a wash to me.

Me earlier: … the difference is that I like Gingrich’s attack-the-media mode because the media richly deserves it.

Well, he seems to come off as being arrogant. That doesn’t seem very remorseful.

I don’t see it as arrogant at all when someone takes on the MSM. I wish more would do the same. But I don’t understand … why in the world should Gingrich be remorseful to the MSM?

Me earlier: Gingrich has publicly admitted his adultery and asked for forgiveness. What’s with the commentor’s continued Gingrich has got to “come clean” mantra?”

Can you help me with a link to that apology?

Glad to oblige:

http://tinyurl.com/7bvubh9

The relevant quote:

But all of that has required a great deal of pain, some of which I have caused others, which I regret deeply," Gingrich said, "all of those required having to go to God to seek both reconciliation, but also to seek God's acceptance, that I had to recognize how limited I was.

Now if the commentor would provide the links I’ve asked him for. You remember, don’t you readers? Those ‘other’ adulteries that the commentor insists that Gingrich is guilty of.

I didn’t say I wasn’t going to vote for none of the candidates, just Gingrich.

Now I’m burning with curiosity. Just which of the GOP candidates would the commentor vote for? My suspicion is none. My suspicion is that the commentor is a Lefty posing as someone who is concerned about marital morality in order to gain credibility in tearing down a rising GOP candidate.

“Yeah, but Tony Perkins endorsed Santorum, which the commentor also does not like. Looks like a wash to me.”

Well, regarding Gingrich, I agree with Perkins’ comment about leadership. I think that’s the crux of the problem for Gingrich. As far Santorum, it’s not a matter of not liking him, it’s my concern of him wanting to impose his religious believes on others. Again, it’s a First Amendment issue. I have some experience with the Catholic faith. Santorum’s positions are right down the line Catholic beliefs hence my quip about him running for bishop. But you know what, not everyone in this country is Catholic. Let’s stick with the First Amendment.

“I don’t see it as arrogant at all when someone takes on the MSM. I wish more would do the same. But I don’t understand … why in the world should Gingrich be remorseful to the MSM?”

I’d rather a candidate answer the questions posed to them in a professional and informative manner. Gingrich seems to take pleasure in belittling the individual asking the questions. That’s not conducive to a professional or informative exchange. Again, Gingrich is running to be a public servant, not a king.

"Me earlier: Gingrich has publicly admitted his adultery and asked for forgiveness. What’s with the commentor’s continued Gingrich has got to “come clean” mantra?”

Can you help me with a link to that apology?

Glad to oblige:

http://tinyurl.com/7bvubh9

The relevant quote:

But all of that has required a great deal of pain, some of which I have caused others, which I regret deeply," Gingrich said, "all of those required having to go to God to seek both reconciliation, but also to seek God's acceptance, that I had to recognize how limited I was."

So a 30 second campaign ad is his apology for his numerous affairs? Is that correct? According to the NPR article, Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, thinks Gingrich's apologies haven't gone far enough. Land says Gingrich needs to make a heartfelt apology. I agree.

“Now if the commentor would provide the links I’ve asked him for. You remember, don’t you readers? Those ‘other’ adulteries that the commentor insists that Gingrich is guilty of.”

Again, the Vanity Fair article at the link below discusses Gingrich’s affairs with Dot Crews, a campaign volunteer in 1974, and Anne Manning, a campaign volunteer in 1976. You have to scroll down to around the halfway point:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html

If you want more specifics I'm afraid we will have to commission a special investigator as was done for the Lewinsky scandal to get all the dirt. So should we blow several million like we did for Clinton to learn about blue dresses and cigars or just take Newt on his word?

“Now I’m burning with curiosity. Just which of the GOP candidates would the commentor vote for? My suspicion is none. My suspicion is that the commentor is a Lefty posing as someone who is concerned about marital morality in order to gain credibility in tearing down a rising GOP candidate.”

Well, by process of elimination, Romney. But November is still a ways off.

Me earlier: I don’t see it as arrogant at all when someone takes on the MSM. I wish more would do the same. But I don’t understand … why in the world should Gingrich be remorseful to the MSM?

I’d rather a candidate answer the questions posed to them in a professional and informative manner. Gingrich seems to take pleasure in belittling the individual asking the questions. That’s not conducive to a professional or informative exchange. Again, Gingrich is running to be a public servant, not a king.

It seems the commentor believes that the MSM should never, ever be crossed. All questions, which as we all know are frequently loaded with bias against conservatives, should be meekly dealt with. Just accept the bias in the premise, wording or tone of any so-called question from the MSM. No need to worry because for the commentor MSNBC and the others just want an “informational exchange” when they try to bring down a candidate.

Me earlier: Gingrich has publicly admitted his adultery and asked for forgiveness. What’s with the commentor’s continued Gingrich has got to “come clean” mantra?”

So a 30 second campaign ad is his apology for his numerous affairs?

Here we go again with the commentor’s insistence, with no credible evidence, of “numerous affairs” for Gingrich.

… the Vanity Fair article at the link below discusses Gingrich’s affairs with Dot Crews, a campaign volunteer in 1974, and Anne Manning, a campaign volunteer in 1976. You have to scroll down to around the halfway point:

Is this is the best the commentor can do? I read the article and found several references to Dot Crews, none of which claim she was ever sexually involved with Gingrich. An apparent misreading of the article by the commentor, no doubt.

The other lady, Ann Manning, claims in the article that she had oral sex with Gingrich in 1976. What a coincidence! At the time the article was written, 1998, Clinton was catching hell for oral sex with Lewinsky. Neat, huh? Clinton was in trouble for performing oral sex so a left-leaning magazine digs up someone who would claim to have had oral sex with a prominent Republican, thereby showing their readers that Clinton wasn’t so bad because, hey, a Clinton opponent had also performed oral sex – a transparent ploy to assist Clinton.

For my part, I’ll believe Ann Manning when she produces a sperm-stained dress or two. Until then it’s your standard he said/she said bullshit without credibility.

Me earlier: Now I’m burning with curiosity. Just which of the GOP candidates would the commentor vote for? My suspicion is none. My suspicion is that the commentor is a Lefty posing as someone who is concerned about marital morality in order to gain credibility in tearing down a rising GOP candidate.”

Well, by process of elimination, Romney. But November is still a ways off.

Really? Even after the commentor made this statement early on in the comments?

I don’t see Romney, who will be the nominee, beating Obama. Romney is an empty suit worried about making a buck.

Color me unconvinced. To me the commentor still looks like a Lefty posing as a Republican in order to gain credibility in his criticism of the GOP candidates. I don’t think he has any intention of voting for a Republican.

I don’t see Romney, who will be the nominee, beating Obama. Romney is an empty suit worried about making a buck.

Color me unconvinced. To me the commentor still looks like a Lefty posing as a Republican in order to gain credibility in his criticism of the GOP candidates. I don’t think he has any intention of voting for a Republican.

Do you not understand that most Republicans who are planning to vote for Romney think he "is an empty suit worried about making a buck"? In their defense, it's true, but apparently they hate Obama so much that they'll take Romney bot over him.

Do you not understand that most Republicans who are planning to vote for Romney think he "is an empty suit worried about making a buck"? In their defense, it's true, but apparently they hate Obama so much that they'll take Romney bot over him.

Really? I haven’t seen anyone in the news that favors Romney also characterizing Romney negatively. Maybe the commentor has, in which case a link would be helpful. For me the real “empty suit” belongs to Obama, not Romney. One thing I know for sure is that I will vote for Obama’s opponent.

“It seems the commentor believes that the MSM should never, ever be crossed. All questions, which as we all know are frequently loaded with bias against conservatives, should be meekly dealt with. Just accept the bias in the premise, wording or tone of any so-called question from the MSM. No need to worry because for the commentor MSNBC and the others just want an “informational exchange” when they try to bring down a candidate.”

Grackle,

I’m not saying a candidate should not counter a questioner or interviewer if the question is loaded or bias. But Gingrich comes off arrogant and in the case of the question about his ex-wife’s interview with ABC he was indignant. If he did not anticipate being asked a question about his past infidelities, then he is inept as a candidate. I don’t think that is the case though. I think his display of righteous indignation was a show or put on, i.e., more bullshit.

“Here we go again with the commentor’s insistence, with no credible evidence, of “numerous affairs” for Gingrich.

Is this is the best the commentor can do? I read the article and found several references to Dot Crews, none of which claim she was ever sexually involved with Gingrich. An apparent misreading of the article by the commentor, no doubt.

The other lady, Ann Manning, claims in the article that she had oral sex with Gingrich in 1976. What a coincidence! At the time the article was written, 1998, Clinton was catching hell for oral sex with Lewinsky. Neat, huh? Clinton was in trouble for performing oral sex so a left-leaning magazine digs up someone who would claim to have had oral sex with a prominent Republican, thereby showing their readers that Clinton wasn’t so bad because, hey, a Clinton opponent had also performed oral sex – a transparent ploy to assist Clinton.

For my part, I’ll believe Ann Manning when she produces a sperm-stained dress or two. Until then it’s your standard he said/she said bullshit without credibility.”

Grackle,

Are you truly a Republican? Do you have values or do you just believe in bumper sticker slogans like the one Palin loves to spout? How many times does a man have to fuck around on his family before you start to question his integrity and character? You keep referring to Clinton’s infidelities. Is Clinton some short of standard for you? You’re so ready to forgive Gingrich but not Clinton. Why? Because of perjury? Lying only counts when done under oath? How about Gingrich’s ethnic violations as speaker? Are you going to give him a pass for that as well?

Gingrich is a liar and a hypocrite and your acceptance and rationalization of his behavior is one of the troubles with the current Republican Party. You’ll take anybody for the Office of the President of the United States just because you can’t deal with Obama in the White House. Do you believe in Democracy? Do you have values?

“Color me unconvinced. To me the commentor still looks like a Lefty posing as a Republican in order to gain credibility in his criticism of the GOP candidates. I don’t think he has any intention of voting for a Republican.”

Grackle,

He’s got until November to improve. It’s his job to convince me. If not, I guess I’ll have to sit this one out. If my one vote results in Obama being reelected, well so be it. As far as your positions, you seem to have no concern about the integrity or character of those running for the highest office in the land. Put an R after his name and you’ll blindly vote for him.

“Is this is the best the commentor can do? I read the article and found several references to Dot Crews, none of which claim she was ever sexually involved with Gingrich. An apparent misreading of the article by the commentor, no doubt.”

Your are correct concerning the misread. From the Vanity Fair article:

“Along with his amorphous political persona, Newt showed a propensity for the kind of behavior boys boast about in the locker room. Throughout his first campaign he was having an affair with a young volunteer. Dot Crews, who occasionally drove the candidate, says that almost everybody involved in the campaign knew. Kip Carter claims, "We'd have won in 1974 if we could have kept him out of the office, screwing her on the desk."

I mistook Dot Crews as the name of the woman who he was having the affair with. That was not correct. However, the issue still stands about Gingrich’s philandering.

“The other lady, Ann Manning, claims in the article that she had oral sex with Gingrich in 1976. What a coincidence! At the time the article was written, 1998, Clinton was catching hell for oral sex with Lewinsky. Neat, huh? Clinton was in trouble for performing oral sex so a left-leaning magazine digs up someone who would claim to have had oral sex with a prominent Republican, thereby showing their readers that Clinton wasn’t so bad because, hey, a Clinton opponent had also performed oral sex – a transparent ploy to assist Clinton.”

You have quite the conspiratorial mind. Kip Carter, Gingrich’s campaign treasurer at the time, also corroborated the story about Newt and oral sex.

“For my part, I’ll believe Ann Manning when she produces a sperm-stained dress or two. Until then it’s your standard he said/she said bullshit without credibility.”

Well you know that’s not going to happen. This is not a trial in court were we need evidence beyond reasonable doubt to make a judgment. As the saying goes, once is a fluke, twice is a trend and three times is a habit. Gingrich has shown he has a habit for philandering and I question his integrity and character. I don’t trust the man.

I’m not saying a candidate should not counter a questioner or interviewer if the question is loaded or bias. But Gingrich comes off arrogant and in the case of the question about his ex-wife’s interview with ABC he was indignant.

That Gingrich “arrogance” sure did get a lot of folks in the debate audience to clapping and cheering. My guess is that they were not cheering him for his arrogance.

Are you truly a Republican? Do you have values or do you just believe in bumper sticker slogans like the one Palin loves to spout?

No, I’m not a Republican. I’m an independent voter. Even if I were a Republican I wouldn’t be in the “family values” section of the GOP. Disgruntled family values voters cost the GOP the last election and saddled the nation with Obama. Many of them either bashed McCain after his nomination or sat out the last election, just as the commentor will probably do. Many of these same folks are now some of the loudest whiners about Obama. The irony would make me smile were it not so sad.

How many times does a man have to fuck around on his family before you start to question his integrity and character?

To repeat: I do not care about any politician’s sex life. I never factor sex life into the equation when I consider a politician. Also, I resigned myself years ago to the fact that no politician is going to be a perfect fit for my vote, that none of them will ever precisely coincide with my views on the issues. So I contributed to McCain’s(who was not my first choice) campaign chest, talked him up whenever a discussion arose in conversation and enthusiastically flipped the lever for him on election day.

You keep referring to Clinton’s infidelities. Is Clinton some short of standard for you?

I could care less about Gingrich, Clinton or Edward’s sex life. It was only after the commentor stated that Gingrich was just as bad as those two in the sleaze department that I decided to defend Gingrich on the sleaze issue. There’s even a sex tape of Edwards and his lady friend circulating. So far none of Newt.

You’re so ready to forgive Gingrich but not Clinton.

The commentor gets it wrong again. It’s the commentor who played the sleaze card – not me. Let me repeat: I don’t give a fig about anyone’s sex life. The commentor is the one who claims to be concerned about sleaze. But if sleaze is the issue I could not stand by while Gingrich was condemned and labeled as bad as Clinton and Edwards – which is laughable on the face of it. And dear readers, do you notice it too? The commentor’s wistful yearning for folks to “forgive” Clinton? This dude ain’t no Republican.

Why? Because of perjury? Lying only counts when done under oath?

Depends on the situation. Some ordinary lying is bad for sure. But lying under oath destroys the credibility of the court which is why judges get really angry when they find it out.

How about Gingrich’s ethnic violations as speaker? Are you going to give him a pass for that as well?

As I understand it those ethic violations were minor – just an excuse to shove aside Gingrich because he was disliked by some influential GOP politicians in the House. Unless I find out different Newt will get my vote if he wins the nomination.

Gingrich is a liar and a hypocrite and your acceptance and rationalization of his behavior is one of the troubles with the current Republican Party.

The commentor should leave such memes to the MSM. They are so much better at it than him.

You’ll take anybody for the Office of the President of the United States just because you can’t deal with Obama in the White House.

I will “deal” with Obama in the proper way – by campaigning for the GOP nominee with my friends and acquaintances, by contributing some cash and defending Obama’s critics and opponents when they are unfairly attacked

The commentor evidently equates democracy with his personal values. My reading of history tells me that democracy can exist within a variety of value systems. Of course I have values but they are different than the commentor’s values without a doubt.

He’s got until November to improve. It’s his job to convince me.

The commentor has already said he won’t vote for Gingrich so the above statement is a lie by his own standard. And we all know that all lies matter to the commentor, not just the ones uttered while under oath, so I am sure the commentor will never vote for himself – which is a good thing. I have an idea! Perhaps the commentor should debate with himself until he convinces himself not to lie anymore. Failing that he should never talk to himself again.

If not, I guess I’ll have to sit this one out.

Which is what this poser is hoping some of us will do. Come November he will pull the lever for Obama.

“The commentor evidently equates democracy with his personal values. My reading of history tells me that democracy can exist within a variety of value systems. Of course I have values but they are different than the commentor’s values without a doubt.”

I would say that you don’t have true family values if you are comfortable with Gingrich’s behavior. It’s interesting that I have to argue in the defense of family values with someone who claims to be a Republican.

“The commentor has already said he won’t vote for Gingrich so the above statement is a lie by his own standard. And we all know that all lies matter to the commentor, not just the ones uttered while under oath, so I am sure the commentor will never vote for himself – which is a good thing. I have an idea! Perhaps the commentor should debate with himself until he convinces himself not to lie anymore. Failing that he should never talk to himself again.”

No. Romney has got until November to convince me to support him else I sit this one out.

“Which is what this poser is hoping some of us will do. Come November he will pull the lever for Obama.”

No. I have no desire to influence anyone to vote or not. And again, I didn’t vote for Obama in the last election and I'm not planning to do so this time.

I would say that you don’t have true family values if you are comfortable with Gingrich’s behavior.

I wonder if the commentor is familiar with the logical fallacy sometimes known as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

http://tinyurl.com/y9og5d

Let’s just say that I’m way more uncomfortable with Obama as President than I would be with Gingrich in the Whitehouse, despite any sexual dalliances Gingrich may have had years ago. I’m more interested in defense, the economy and foreign policy. I think people should keep their family values in their family and not impose their values on everyone else. I too have a family but we don’t go around telling everyone else how to behave.

It’s interesting that I have to argue in the defense of family values with someone who claims to be a Republican.

And I find it interesting that the commentor overlooked the fact that I’ve previously announced that I am NOT a Republican. But we already know the commentor is not exactly a careful reader due to his Dot Crews faux pas a couple of comments ago.

Romney has got until November to convince me to support him else I sit this one out.

Sure. We believe the commentor, don’t we? All Romney has to do to get the commentor’s vote is fill that “empty suit” of Romney’s with family values and come November the commentor will rush down to the polls and pull the lever for Romney. Right.

No. I have no desire to influence anyone to vote or not. And again, I didn’t vote for Obama in the last election and I'm not planning to do so this time.

What part of McCain’s family values stances convinced the commentor to vote for McCain over Obama? I don’t recall that McCain’s family values standing was any higher than Obama’s. I mean it must have been a real dilemma for the commentor, what with Obama being an outstanding family values candidate, happily married, faithful, with two attractive daughters and a regular church-goer to boot. That is, Obama WAS a regular church-goer until public sentiment during the 2008 campaign necessitated that he throw Rev. Wright under the bus.

Those Wright videos were stunning, weren’t they? God DAMN America! The government invented HIV to kill blacks! 9/11 was just America's chickens are coming home to roost! Etc.

But Obama wasn’t in that church for religious purposes. Obama attended that church to gain credibility with his Chicago constituents, similar to the commentor’s somewhat transparent tactic on this blog.

Readers, I don’t for a minute believe the commentor’s family values and First Amendment assertions are sincere. I think it’s a pose, a fabrication, a way to gain credibility while he castigates the Republican field of candidates.

“I will “deal” with Obama in the proper way – by campaigning for the GOP nominee with my friends and acquaintances, by contributing some cash and defending Obama’s critics and opponents when they are unfairly attacked.”

“Let’s just say that I’m way more uncomfortable with Obama as President than I would be with Gingrich in the Whitehouse, despite any sexual dalliances Gingrich may have had years ago. I’m more interested in defense, the economy and foreign policy. I think people should keep their family values in their family and not impose their values on everyone else. I too have a family but we don’t go around telling everyone else how to behave.”

I agree with your comment that people should keep their family values in their family and not impose their values on everyone else. Hence my concern with Santorum. In the case of Gingrich, I think he is a hypocrite. To me hypocrisy equals lying, oath or no oath. You talk about perjury, yet marriage values don’t seem to be as important. There is also the oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Will Gingrich break that oath as easily as he broke his marriage vows? I don’t know but I don’t have a lot of faith given his infidelities to his loved ones and his ethnic lapses in Congress.

“And I find it interesting that the commentor overlooked the fact that I’ve previously announced that I am NOT a Republican. But we already know the commentor is not exactly a careful reader due to his Dot Crews faux pas a couple of comments ago.”

Grackle,

That question was asked before you indicated you were an Independent. I retract it.

“Sure. We believe the commentor, don’t we? All Romney has to do to get the commentor’s vote is fill that “empty suit” of Romney’s with family values and come November the commentor will rush down to the polls and pull the lever for Romney. Right.”

He’s an empty suit so far. Will he improve? I don’t know, that’s up to him.

“What part of McCain’s family values stances convinced the commentor to vote for McCain over Obama? I don’t recall that McCain’s family values standing was any higher than Obama’s. I mean it must have been a real dilemma for the commentor, what with Obama being an outstanding family values candidate, happily married, faithful, with two attractive daughters and a regular church-goer to boot. That is, Obama WAS a regular church-goer until public sentiment during the 2008 campaign necessitated that he throw Rev. Wright under the bus.”

McCain did have an infidelity in his past with first wife after returning from Vietnam. He ended up marrying that woman, Cindy, and has remained married to her since. Certainly not in the league with Gingrich on cheating so I was more comfortable with him. My bigger heartburn with McCain was the selection of Palin.

Concerning Obama, he wasn’t my candidate.

“But Obama wasn’t in that church for religious purposes. Obama attended that church to gain credibility with his Chicago constituents, similar to the commentor’s somewhat transparent tactic on this blog.”

Can’t the same be said about Gingrich and his conversion to Catholicism? To gain the support of the religious community?

“Readers, I don’t for a minute believe the commentor’s family values and First Amendment assertions are sincere. I think it’s a pose, a fabrication, a way to gain credibility while he castigates the Republican field of candidates.”

Believe what you want. I still think Gingrich has been an embarrassment to the party and is not fit to be the President. So does Chris Christie. I wonder what Palin’s response to Christie will be since she backed Gingrich?

There are so many addictive British TV series on streaming video and I spend way too much time watching them that it can be tempting to drop a "put your bags in the boot" every now and then. I wonder if Sarah watches any Brit TV shows? Will expanded access to Brit-speakers change the way we talk the way Johnny Carson's Nebraska accent became the standard American accent?